Re: Oldies, contest?

["Dan Billings" <dib9@gwi.net>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill O'Neill" <billo@shoreham.net>
To: "Dan Billings" <dib9@gwi.net>; "C. Jenest" <chomerj@yahoo.com>;
<boston-radio-interest@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>; "Aaron 'Bishop' Read"
<aread@speakeasy.net>
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 4:50 PM
Subject: RE: Oldies, contest?

> I'd think that any business operating in any given state would have to
> comply with state regs.  (At least that Secratary of State's office
> would expect as much.)  Multi-state employers deal with this kind of
> stuff every day in areas of state-specific employment practices,
> insurance regulations, and other factors that come into play.

That's true, but there are limits on what burdens a state can impose on
speech and it could be argued that the requirements listed in the earliert
post impact speech.  As it turns out, the requirements are part of a consent
decree so there is not a free speech issue.

> As far as
> Florida taking aim at this kind of business practice that could be
> construed as deceptive, it's refreshingly constructive, versus a sign of
> too much time on their hands, IMHO.  It annoys me more when states roll
> over whenever larger employers make noise while states effort to
> micro-manage or intimidate smaller businesses operating solely within
> their jurisdiction.

The argument would be that the federal government has preempted the field of
regulating the content of broadcasts so the state's can not impose
additional requirements on the content of broadcasts.

-- Dan Billings, Bowdoinham, Maine